Political violence and political language? Fascism isn’t politics in the same way cults aren’t religion. Why let fascism into politics? Why give fascism the cover of politics when it comes to qualifying it’s related violence?

Why? It's always worked for TBTB.

Would an example of this be how you don't care about protecting vulnerable individuals but instead want to push fascism in Ngo's name.

Yeah man you never understood it. We never "championed" gay people, we championed "people", of which we think gay people are a subset.

Jussie Smollett doing a hate crime hoax was NATIONAL NEWS for literally weeks, I'd kind of like to see a little bit of discussion about the quick dry cement and brain hemorrhage here.

Like, you guys are just OK with those lies in service of the cause?

It's almost like it's just theater designed to rile people up.

I'm not saying this is wrong but wookie suggesting Ngo "got a taste of his own medicine" makes your post fall way short of how absurd his posting and rhetoric is. Suggesting he got a taste of his own medicine would imply he participates in violence or promotes it. That is and absolutely absurd and hyperbolic claim. It's actually delusional

Is wookies comment here actually true? If not, its an absolutely absurd and hyperbolic take and justification for him being attacked and being given "a taste of his own medicine". Perhaps you could ask wookie clarify where he came up with those very relevant justifications for his response to innocent people being attacked and hospitalized
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=109

Ok now that we have taken the absurdity and enormous reach he's taken to justify his position of the violence as a "taste of his own medicine", let's take a look at the validity. Why would Ngo cover a proud boys event in NYC the same way he covers antifa in portland where he resides? Ok that's a weird justification for being outraged at Ngo not covering the stories that wookie feels he is obligated to cover. Perhaps you want to lecture him on the absurd standard that everyone has to cover everything and on all sides.

Now lets look at his article. Ok its.... buzzfeed. Yes, that's right buzzfeed. I'll have to admit, I originally gave wookie far too much credit and just read the headline and thought he was referencing some ongoing proud boys attacks. Its actually referring to an old and very known event. You can watch the event from the moment the proud boys exit the building to the incident. Now keep in mind, this is the event that has wookie pissed at people like Ngo to the point where if they don't cover it, they're promoting violence and hate and get a "taste of their own medicine" when antifa attacks them

strikes me as odd that a bunch of nazis have people of color among them, but that doesn't mean they aren't bad people. just something to consider when you're observing narratives and making your own judgement


Here is another angle of the actual fight starting. Antifa with their faces covered coming straight at them and throwing something at them as the first initiation of physical confrontation. "protestors being attacked" isn't really painting an accurate picture here is it. Who knows, maybe my perspective on this video warrants a brain hemorrhage



Here's CBS's report on the situation including the building being vandalized by antifa the day before the event and threats




All in all this seems like a strange launching point for wookies position. It seems like genuine delusion and hyperbole justifying violence. I think sane people can realize that is exactly what antifa is doing. Their facist and nazi fighting is almost non existent

here is a left wing biased take on the proud boy. they actually confirm cumias origin story and silly antics like playfully hitting each other while naming breakfast cereals.



here they are being mocked


I didn't watch this whole thing and I don't expect anyone else to but in the first couple minutes this guy describes his experience in the proud boys as a black person



here's proud boy violence where rival morons brawl with each other



The point of "right wing narrative" was brought up earlier and I also asked for evidence of what the proud boys are actually doing. It might be a good idea to try to discover what is going on in reality vs choosing narratives. This is why i asked. I'm sure there is plenty wrong with the proud boys and i take issue with their behavior in just the videos i have posted, but it might be a good idea to try to justify hyperbolic claims of "nazi" and "fascist" etc with actual evidence. I've posted a bunch of content demonstrating antifa isn't fighting fascism or nazi's. theyre smashing senior citizens, buildings such as berkley for hosting milo, launching large rocks in to crowds of trump supporters, harassing mainstream conservatives, 9/11 widows, gay asian photo journalists who are almost legally a little person, etc. I could continue to spam real unedited video but i'm sure we get the point for now. It would be nice if we could also try to document what the proud boys are and arent doing also. a misleading buzzfeed headline is a hilarious way to shape your worldview

here is what was happening on the 4th of july. It doesn't seem like fighting fascism to show up to the 4th celebrations and say "america was never great" and burn flags. I'm not sure who is or isn't officially antifa but if you're a communist in all black echoing the same behavior and chants, may as well be. It's an ideology not a country club. You either have certain beliefs and act a certain way, or you don't. there's no official access card afaik

This thread is pretty eye opening and also features the proud boys

https://twitter.com/FordFischer/stat...17689430106113

you're comparing Smollett and his faked attack in attempt to start a race riot and subsequently half of MSM taking him seriously to a photo journalist actually being assaulted on video and going to the hospital then subsequently your skepticism of his actual medical records from his actual trip to the hospital and his actual damaged face?

ok

I'm marking this down as a "yes."

So a famous, successful, rich and beautiful actor lights his career on fire by committing multiple felonies in an attempt to simultaneously generate sympathy for himself and hatred against a group of people who he probably has almost no daily interaction with...

... and you're surprised that this was NATIONAL NEWS for literally weeks...

Wow you cats have lost control of your wits.

Good job not following the argument

I'm not chastising the left. I praise the left to the hilt for it's belief in non-violence and proud to be a part of it.

I disagree with the fly & co approach but they are not the left.

Um... You are OK with Jussie's lies in service of the cause?

(Was that the argument I'm missing?)

You're still not following. Do you think there was cement in the milkshakes?

i heard the new thing is that there was some kind of acid in the milkshakes. i think once they got shamed by the science crowd a bunch about how cement wouldn't harden in milkshakes so it would still just be a milkshake, they changed the diabolical details..

I dunno man it sure seems that you think this supposed attack needs condemned and that Ngo is some sort of victim.

I have to say once again how fascinating a portal into group psychology and sociology this forum is.

I don't think it is an accident at all that the posters who virtue signal, moralize and generally have high disgust towards "conservative society" are the ones who have nothing bad to say about Antifa violence, and are instead just victim blaming.

Clearly, for whatever reason, this is a high leverage issue to signal ideological purity and reinforce tribal solidarity.

I gotta ask, how bothered are you by the honestly much more pervasive and extreme violence from the far right? There were 7100 hate crimes last year of which 60% were about race/sexuality. And that's with significant under reporting.

I'm not justifying some journalist getting beaten up however badly. That's obviously a bad thing. I'm just seriously asking if you're paying a ton of attention to a few hundred (at most) incidents of mostly pretty trivial (in terms of physical injury) violence from 'antifa' (mostly goofy middle class white kids with no particular talent for violence) versus the significant numbers of life altering or life ending injuries being dished out mostly by racists and homophobes?

Are you bothered by the mortality rate for trans people? I find most of the conversation around 'trans rights' pretty toxic, and generally see them as people suffering from a mental illness, but the violence against them is real and as a result really bothers me.

If you're not willing to acknowledge that the violence problem is much more serious and prevalent on the right... Idk dude. It becomes pretty hard to take you seriously.

Ultimately the question is do you believe in 3rd party self defence. Should I be able to intervene violently against an attacker in order to save someone elses life? These Nazis are causing innocent children to die in camps. Is it morally acceptable to intervene in 3rd party self defence on behalf of those who can't defend themselves?

The thing I'm averse to is political violence and I oppose any suggestion that if Ngo was a victim of it then it 's ok because he deserves it. If it turns out he initiated the violence or is faking it all (rather than exaggerating the extent) the it changes the particulars but it doesn't change the argument.

Opposing violence is not supporting the right. It's part of supporting the finest of the left wing. And I'm pretty sure it's supporting the vast majority of the left.

and rest assured if someone on the left is found to have attacked Ngo then I will apologise for them and most likely have a great deal of sympathy with them. That's all personal but I'll still be opposing political violence and arguing against anyone supporting it.

We can have a discussion on morality etc but this is well trodden ground politically and on the left (and for other groups such as extinction rebellion) it comes down to whether you support the principle of non-violent direct action or not.

You can support violence if you want but you ain't going to get to own violence as if that's the position of the left. It isn't.

I don't consider legitimate self defence (3rd party or otherwise) to be in the same moral category as the initiation of violence. Like violently attacking and killing an active mass shooter ain't violence its 3rd party self defence. In the vast majority of situations non violent direct action is the best solution and the moral one.

Yes sure but as you say legitimate self-defense (including 3rd party) is not initiating a violent encounter.

For some even violent self-defense is a bad thing - I tend to agree but I'm pretty sure I don't have the strength.

If kelhus is an extremist jainist that's one thing but I very much doubt it.

What kelhus (or anyone other poster) is, is irrelevant to the issue.

One of the hazards of being caught up in the right-wing media grift ecosystem, is that it leaves you hopelessly uninformed on a whole host of issues, but especially on the actual views of the left/progressives. The right can’t actually accurately describe the views of the left because that would kill their grift. They have to portray the left as scary and crazy to keep the Jsmiths scared and angry, so they tell Jsmith that progressives think if you ever say something bad about a member of the lgbtq community, you are a homophobe. Or that identity politics is some leftist plot to make everyone gay or whatever. That’s why you have people like Jsmith jumping into these threads with stuff like the above thinking he’s seriously owning the libs. If he understood that identity as gay, trans, female or whatever is only relevant to the left/progressives/decent people in so much as people are being mistreated because they are gay or a woman or trans, then he would realize how stupid his take is. NGO was being attacked because he’s gay or Asian, he was being attacked because he promotes and defends life fascism ie the Proud Boys and other factions of the altright.

If the right actually accurately describes these issues that motivate much of the left, it would sound way too reasonable and they wouldn’t be able to sell you any survival vaccuum sealed dry goods or whatever.